Yet both as a candidate and commander-in-chief, Trump has routinely criticized others for divulging restricted information.

In July, following then-FBI Director James Comey’s conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her State Department staffers “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Trump branded the Democratic nominee as “unfit” for the presidency.

Crooked Hillary Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Not fit!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 6, 2016

In October, Trump fumed that Clinton, who at the time was leading him in the polls, nor anyone in her campaign had been charged with a crime.

In January, then-President-elect Trump assailed those within the U.S. government for sharing a report detailing alleged Russian hacking of top Democratic officials during the 2016 election, and demanded a congressional investigation.

I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2017

Before I, or anyone, saw the classified and/or highly confidential hacking intelligence report, it was leaked out to @NBCNews. So serious!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2017

In February, amid new reports of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, the president tweeted that the “real scandal” wasn’t those reported ties but that “classified information” about them was being “given out … like candy.”

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by "intelligence" like candy. Very un-American!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

A day later, Trump called on the New York Times and other media outlets to apologize for publishing “illegal classified” leaks.

Leaking, and even illegal classified leaking, has been a big problem in Washington for years. Failing @nytimes (and others) must apologize!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 16, 2017

Later that month, after reports that Trump’s chief of staff Reince Priebus had asked the FBI to push back against stories alleging the Trump campaign’s ties to the Kremlin, the president ripped the bureau for failing to stop the leaks.

“Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S.,” Trump tweeted. “FIND NOW.”

The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security "leakers" that have permeated our government for a long time. They can't even……
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2017

find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S. FIND NOW
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2017

In early March, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, Trump tweeted the “real story” was “all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information.” The president also called the focus on his campaign’s ties to Moscow a “witch hunt.”

Jeff Sessions is an honest man. He did not say anything wrong. He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

…intentional. This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

…to win. The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election, and now they have lost their grip on reality. The real story…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

…is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total "witch hunt!"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

On March 20, Trump lashed out over the ongoing Russia probe, demanding the “leaker” of classified information be found.

The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

I have been asking Director Comey & others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Trump’s not the only one in Washington who has a history of ripping rivals over their handling of U.S. intelligence.
In a lengthy Twitter thread, Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” documented the hypocrisy of Republicans—including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio—who were quick to criticize Clinton but did not immediately do the same to Trump.

Concerns over Donald Trump’s mental status are taking hold in Washington and the media after the latest report that he leaked classified information to Russian officials.

Reporters and television news programme pundits have been diving into comments from sources close to the president that speak to his mental health and mood in a way that has not been done with other presidents. However, the recent news about Mr Trump is also somewhat unprecedented.

The Washington Post recently reported that Mr Trump revealed “highly classified” information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak during a meeting in the Oval Office.

The meeting took place just one day after Mr Trump unceremoniously fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading an investigation into alleged ties between Russia and Mr Trump’s campaign team.

Also, the New York Times reported that Mr Trump asked Mr Comey to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s alleged Russia ties, adding that Mr Flynn “he’s a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

In another report, the Washington Post said their sources called into question Mr Trump’s “state of mind.”
Carl Bernstein, the legendary journalist who uncovered the Watergate scandal and corruption within the Nixon presidency, argued that reporting on Mr Trump’s mental fitness is valid.

“We have many reporters, myself included, who have talked to numerous people, Republicans on Capitol Hill, who in private will tell you they doubt the stability of this president,” he said.

However, those speculating are not trained mental health professionals.

The American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics states “a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.“

The clause, dating back to 1973, has been dubbed the “Goldwater Rule,” named after the 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
Over 2,000 psychiatrists responded to a magazine’s 1964 survey asking if Mr Goldwater was psychologically fit for the presidency in their estimation and the majority said he was not.

The magazine then published nearly 40 pages of the psychiatrists’ responses shortly before the election. Mr Goldwater lost the election and sued the now-defunct Fact magazine for libel and won.

Psychiatrists are medical doctors and can prescribe medication as necessary. Psychologists usually have doctorate degrees but are not medical doctors.

Still, the American Psychological Association issued a statement regarding their version of the “Goldwater Rule” during the 2016 presidential campaign given the number of media outlets calling them to weigh in on Mr Trump’s psychological fitness to become president.

“Our Code of Ethics clearly warns psychologists against diagnosing any person, including public figures, whom they have not personally examined,” President Susan H. McDaniel, PhD wrote.

Some professionals, however, are disregarding the “Goldwater Rule” because they feel Mr Trump's position and behaviour make him an exception and that they have a duty to weigh in.

Thirty-five psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers - some of them retired - have signed a letter to the editors of the New York Times expressing their concern over Mr Trump’s “profound inability to empathise.”

They wrote people with this trait “distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them.”

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

The Comey memo was also about Trump’s request to arrest reporters. Journalists call it ‘crazy and scary.’

Journalists are accustomed to President Trump’s contempt for the press by this point, but his apparent desire to jail reporters who publish classified information still sent shockwaves through the profession.

The New York Times published a story with details from a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey about a meeting he had with Trump last February. Although the memo has mostly generated controversy for Trump’s reported attempt to squelch an investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, the president also reportedly asked Comey to bring charges against journalists who publish classified information:

“Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.”

Yahoo News reached out to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an independent nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of journalists around the world, for reaction to Trump’s reported desire to jail journalists.

Joel Simon, who has been the executive director of the CPJ since 2006, has led the organization’s efforts to protect press freedom in the digital space. He helped establish the CPJ’s Global Campaign Against Impunity and Journalist Assistance program.

He spoke to Yahoo News about how Trump’s latest comments differ from his anti-media campaign rhetoric and what they mean for the state of journalism.

Yahoo News: As somebody who’s committed to protecting the rights of journalists, what was your immediate reaction when you heard this?

Joel Simon: My immediate reaction is that it’s crazy and scary. It suggests that the kind of rhetorical attacks on the media that have become sort of background noise at this point — actually there was an attempt by the president to translate those ideas into actions that could affect the ability of journalists to do their work.

Well, his language is unprecedented, in terms of the way he talks about the media and views its role. The damage done by that language to rights of journalists around the world is very significant because he’s normalizing the kind of language that autocratic leaders generally use when they talk about the media. And when he met with [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan yesterday, he completed what we call the “Press Freedom Violators” trifecta. He’s now met with the three leading jailers of journalists. He’s met with Erdoğan of Turkey, [President Abdel Fattah] el-Sisi of Egpyt and [President] Xi [Jinping] of China.

In terms of journalists in the United States, let’s acknowledge that the attacks have been rhetorical. Journalists find that chilling, but for the most part they’re able to do their jobs. But this is an escalation, or a potential escalation, so the threat is very real. This is a reminder, and what hasn’t been borne out, yet it still something we need to be cognizant of.

Trump essentially says something shocking or controversial every single day. Sometimes it’s about an inconsequential matter, but occasionally he’ll say something like this, which carries consequences. Do you fear that the sheer number of outlandish things he says will prevent the public from picking up on these more serious matters?

Let me clarify something. He didn’t actually say this to the public. When he condemns American journalists as “enemies of the American people” or he lashes out and calls CNN “fake news,” that’s alarming obviously. But you can kind of say that’s a rhetorical gesture he’s making to rally his supporters or that there’s a political dimension. But this was said allegedly in a private meeting. This was not said to the public. This was not intended to distract people, change the subject or rally the base. It appears based on the reporting that he’s serious about finding ways to put journalists in jail, and sought to enlist the director of the FBI. This is of a different magnitude.

“The comments attributed to President Trump cross a dangerous line. But no president gets to jail journalists. Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information.

“Comments such as these, emerging in the way they did, only remind us that every day public servants are reaching out to reporters to ensure the public is aware of the risks today to rule of law in this country. The president’s remarks should not intimidate the press but inspire it.”

Laughing.....Out.....Loud !!! When all this circus is said and done...we'll see what is so "Fake" about it...and I will be right here....laughing my rear end off..... and I will be typing posts with the only words that matters...

" I TOLD YOU SO !! "

Last edited by millionairetobe71; 05-17-2017 at 08:02 PM.

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

You idiot, you posted a thousand times about how Hilary was going to win the election...and that earned you the title of Forum Jester!!! You didn't tell anybody crap except for how stupid you are.

You will continue to squirm and remain pissed everyday, make sure to take your meds. You're watching reality politics.

Hey Brainless Fart...I AM LAUGHING AT YOU !!!

For the Record, Mrs Clinton did won the elections, Donaldof Trumpler stole it with the help of his Russian friends......

This is incredibly funny man.....see how the foam castle dissolves all around Donaldof.....and that leaves the little puppets like yourselves thinking..."What is gong to be next"?....

The answer is simple....Impeachment

I don't have a political blindfold like you and others here...I can see reality for what really is and I said it from the very beginning...this scumbag called Donaldof Trumpler is not good for America, good for Russia, but not for our country...The question for you is...when you will start to see reality for what really is, instead of being politically blindfolded?

Last edited by millionairetobe71; 05-18-2017 at 08:11 PM.

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

As Donald Trump was laying waste to a field of 18 Republican challengers en route to claiming his party’s presidential nomination, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was caught making a quip about Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy, R-Calif., said, according to a recording of the exchange on June 15, 2016, obtained by the Washington Post. The other reference was to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who was profiled last year in Politico as “Putin’s Favorite Congressman.”

In response the remark, to which several colleagues are heard responding to with laughter, House Speaker Paul Ryan is heard interjecting a warning to keep the conversation from leaving Capitol Hill.

“No leaks…This is how we know we’re a real family here,” Ryan said, according to the Post.

The timing of the release of the exchange is awkward for the Republican leadership who are under mounting pressure to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia during the 2016 election.

On Wednesday, one day after the New York Times reported that President Trump pressured former FBI Director James Comey to quash an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s ties with Moscow, Ryan was asked whether he still had confidence in the president. “I do,” Ryan responded.

When asked to comment about the 2016 exchange about Trump and Putin, spokespeople for both Ryan and McCarthy denied the encounter took place, the Post reported. When the newspaper informed them that it had a recording of the comments, the spokespersons portrayed the comments as a joke.

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

Conservative columnist Ross Douthat made waves Wednesday morning with a column in the New York Times advocating the use of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — rather than impeachment — to remove Trump from office. And this isn’t the first time it’s been suggested. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen made a similar argument in January.

As amendments go, the 25th is relatively exciting because it deals with the presidential line of succession. It has been referenced in Hollywood movies like “Air Force One” and popular television shows like “24.”
And though it’s been invoked as means for ousting Trump, it’s not entirely clear that this would be possible.
What is the 25th Amendment?

Briefly, the 25th Amendment is intended to clarify what happens in the event of the president or vice president’s death, resignation or removal from office. It also outlines how an Oval Office vacancy should be filled if the president becomes disabled and cannot fulfill his or her duties.
There are four separate sections to the amendment. Section 4, which concerns presidential disability, has gotten the most attention from Trump critics.
Why was it created?

In an interview with Yahoo News, Brian C. Kalt, a professor of law at Michigan State University, explained that the original U.S. Constitution had some small gaps concerning the presidential line of succession. Over the years, these concerns have been largely hypothetical and haven’t led to significant problems. But a consensus for the need to account for those problems intensified after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Congress passed the 25th Amendment on July 6, 1965, and was ratified on February 10, 1967.
What is Section 1?

The amendment’s first part states that if the president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the vice president will then become president.

“That might seem obvious but it was actually a matter of quite a bit of controversy the first time it happened, when William Henry Harrison died in 1841,” Kalt said. “Vice President Tyler said that he was now president and other people looking at the Constitution said, ‘No, we think you’re just acting president.’”
What is Section 2?

Section 2 details the process for filling a vice presidential vacancy. If there is no vice president, the president shall nominate someone to fill that vacancy. He or she will take office following confirmation by a simple majority from the House of Representatives and the Senate.
This section has twice been used since the amendment passed. When Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, then President Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be the new vice president. The following year, when Ford became president upon Nixon’s resignation, he appointed Nelson Rockefeller to take his place.
What is Section 3?

Section 3 states that should the president inform Congress that he is unable to “discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the vice president will become acting president until the president is once again capable.
This has been used most often in situations in which the president is under sedation for a colonoscopy or a similar medical procedure. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both invoked the amendment in this way.
What is Section 4?

This is where things get a bit more complicated.
Section 4 outlines what should happen in circumstances when the president is disabled but cannot or will not declare this fact. This might be the situation if the president is in a coma or his plane crashed, he is missing, the administration cannot communicate with him and no one knows whether he’s alive or dead.
“In a situation like that,” Kalt said, “they thought it was important to have a process.”
According to Section 4, if the vice president and a majority of his cabinet say that the president is disabled and cannot “discharge the powers and duties of his office,” then the vice president becomes president.
Could Section 4 be used to oust Trump?

In his New York Times column, Douthat argues that Trump’s situation is not what the “Cold War-era designers were envisioning” but that the president’s inability to “really govern” is testified to on a daily basis by his Cabinet.

“Read the things that these people, members of his inner circle, his personally selected appointees, say daily through anonymous quotations to the press. (And I assure you they say worse off the record.) They have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpate with contempt for him, and to regard their mission as equivalent to being stewards for a syphilitic emperor,” Douthat wrote.

Kalt, who earned his juris doctor from Yale Law School and researches structural constitutional law and juries, argues, however, that using Section 4 in the case of Trump “would be a really bad idea.”

He believes that commentators like Douthat and Cohen might think Trump is nuts and unfit for the office, but says that the fact that he’s still lucid and able to communicate would make problematic the use of Section 4 as a means for removing him from office.

If Vice President Mike Pence and the majority of Trump’s Cabinet were to declare that Trump is disabled, Pence would temporarily assume the role of commander in chief, but then Trump could easily come back and declare that he is just fine. In this situation, Pence and the cabinet would then have four days to reiterate their declaration that he is disabled.

If they failed to do this, Trump would have his power back. If they did reiterate their claim, then Congress would assemble within 48 hours and vote on whether they think Trump is able to “discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Pence would stay on as president if he could secure a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate that Trump is unable to be president.
“If the president loses that vote he can always keep coming back and say, ‘Well, now I’m OK,’ and again Congress would have to vote,” Kalt said.

Section 4, it bears pointing out, has never been used.
The importance of the four-day period

He said that commentators often get a very important aspect of Section 4 wrong. According to his reading of the amendment, if the president were to say he is not disabled, he would not retake power immediately — because of the four-day waiting period.

The law scholar said it would be very dangerous if the president were to regain his power right away.

“If he took power back immediately, he would fire the Cabinet and they wouldn’t be able to say that he was disabled, and that’s not the right reading. They would say, ‘Well, you can’t fire us.’ The acting president would say that he’s president and the president would say he’s in charge. There would be two sets of people saying they are the Cabinet.”
Here is the complete text of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

Donald Trump's campaign made contact with Russia at least 18 times during his presidential race, according to a new report.

The interactions had previously been kept secret by the campaign but are now being reviewed as part of the FBI and congressional investigation into Trump's relationship with Russia.

Conversations between members of Trump's team and high-ranking officials including setting up a special backchannel for communications between the President and Putin, Reuters reported. That would allow the two talk without involving US national security officials.

Will Donald Trump be impeached?

Such discussions accelerated after Donald Trump won the election, in November.

The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what US intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favour of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Those discussions focused on mending US-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said.

In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn's lawyer declined to comment. In Moscow, a Russian foreign ministry official declined to comment on the contacts and referred Reuters to the Trump administration.

In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said.
Veterans of previous election campaigns said some contact with foreign officials during a campaign was not unusual, but the number of interactions between Trump aides and Russian officials and others with links to Putin was exceptional.

"It's rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power," Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear:

They won't take the challenge...they talk a lot of crap, but at the end, very deep inside them they accept that they made a huge, gigantic mistake in voting for the scumbag Puppet named Donaldof Trumpler.

Think about this....which individual occupying the White House has gone through all the horse crap Donaldof has?.....None since Nixon.

If you bash the media...well...the media has a way to get back at you. If you insult the Intelligence Community, the Intel Community as a way to bite you in your ass big league. Donaldof has accomplished those two things, thinking that he, as he feel he is a king, can get away with it just because during the campaign trail he said all he wanted to say and get away with it.... now, it is coming back to bite him in the ass...because absolutely NO ONE wants to work with him....

And we, you and I, will be right here...

LAUGHING OUT LOUD and posting the words that matters.....

WE TOLD YOU SO FOLKS !!!

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that
may or may not occur." --Al Gore, VP :swear: